Foreign Policy and War on Terror Today

Blog Assignment for MONDAY: (I will post this on blog but access is blocked to it currently)

1. Barack Obama
2. Paul Ryan
3. Harry Reid
4. Ed Royce Chair of House Foreign Relations Committee
5. Eliot Engel Ranking member of House Foreign Relations Committee
6. Bob Corker Chair of House Foreign Relations Committee
7. Ben Cardin Ranking member of House Foreign Relations Committee
8. Democratic challenger (Clinton, Sanders, O’Malley)
9. Republican challenger (Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Bush, Paul, Fiorina, etc)

Research what your assigned person is saying about how U.S. should proceed in war on terror against ISIS in light of Paris and Russian plane attacks. (narrow search by time). You will share their beliefs / recommendations as near as accurate as of the date of your post, but you must recommend an action, whether you find they state one or not. THE EMPHASIS HERE IS WE WANT TO IDENTIFY THE PERCEPTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL IN THIS ROLE (SENATE / HOUSE / EXECUTIVE) AND WHAT POWERS THEY THINK SHOULD BE USED. Make it up if you have to, but consider their powers and their likely beliefs about the powers and limitations of the other branch. THIS IS WHAT I AM LOOKING FOR WHEN I SCORE YOUR BLOG.
Site URL and summarize the stance of your assigned person in the first person – 2 paragraph’s minimum. You are summarizing “your” position and defending it (why do you think this is the best course of action). Identify actual quotes where you are using them by using quotation marks. You may use some isolated quotes but your 2 paragraphs are you paraphrasing / summarizing – not just pasting their words in a blog. 

A second assignment - due the Friday after break (DECEMBER 4th - THE FINAL BLOG) - you must respond to someone you disagree with by commenting on their post. Be respectful and clean (at least by the standards of the person you are depicting :)). You don't need an additional url for this one, but keep up on what is going on with the war on terror by then.

The Imperial Presidency - Post due by Monday the 16th

Ted Cruz: The Imperial Presidency of Barack Obama

PLEASE ACCESS ARTICLE ON GOOGLE CLASSROOM - SORRY
Read the Wall Street Journal Op Ed article published January 2014 by Presidential hopeful Senator Ted Cruz.

Take one of his claims and fact check it.  Using a quality source, determine whether there is a factual basis for his claims?  In the title of your post, type the claim you searched.  Summarize the results of your research in a paragraph or two.  Be sure and paste the URL you used.  Please skim some of your classmates posts as well.

House Floor Action Today

Post an update targeted at your constituents  about what took place on the floor today.  Be sure to credit claim where you can and defend your actions where you must.  

FRIDAY FINAL COMMITTEE DAY BLOG -REPUBLICAN CAUCUS COMMUNIQUE'

Your audience of this blog this time is your own party ONLY.  This is an opportunity to share with your fellow party members what they can expect from the full HOUSE - Floor Action session on Tuesday.  They haven't been privy to your discussions, hearings or inner committee dealings.  What would you like to tell them about your bill?  Would you like to prepare them to support amendments you would like to add that didn't get through your committee - if given the opportunity?  Would you like to communicate with strength, and let your Speaker of the House know that you would like to be selected to speak in front of the full House in favor of your bill?  Knowing how important gaining seats in the House in this next election is, take this time to remind you of how an interest group or SuperPac may view a vote on the legislation that may be proposed from your committee.

This post must include:

1.  Some suggestion for strategy - (vote for, vote against, etc.)
2.  Some reference to an actual interest group that would care about a topic related to one of your bills.
3.  If you want to represent your committee and speak in front of the full House, you must make an appeal here.
4.  Make sure the name of your committee is stated somewhere within your post.

FRIDAY FINAL COMMITTEE DAY BLOG -DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS COMMUNIQUE'

Your audience of this blog this time is your own party ONLY.  This is an opportunity to share with your fellow party members what they can expect from the full HOUSE - Floor Action session on Tuesday.  They haven't been privy to your discussions, hearings or inner committee dealings.  What would you like to tell them about your bill?  Would you like to prepare them to support amendments you would like to add that didn't get through your committee - if given the opportunity?  Would you like to communicate with strength, and let your minority floor leader know that you would like to be selected to speak in front of the full House in favor of your bill?  Knowing how important gaining seats in the House in this next election is, take this time to remind you of how an interest group or SuperPac may view a vote on the legislation that may be proposed from your committee.

This post must include:

1.  Some suggestion for strategy - (vote for, vote against, etc.)
2.  Some reference to an actual interest group that would care about a topic related to one of your bills.
3.  If you want to represent your committee and speak in front of the full House, you must make an appeal here.
4.  Make sure the name of your committee is stated somewhere within your post.

Wednesday in Committees in the House

4 students have yet to post to last nights blog - you may do so before 8:15.

I was pleased with your Tuesday posts.  I want to give you some feedback to incorporate into the posts that follow.  I have commented on some of the posts from Tuesday to see examples of what were strengths and in a few cases things to avoid moving forward.  Some general comments:

1.  Speak respectfully about each other, referring to another Congressperson with both a title and a home state.  Congresswoman / Congressperson / my honorable colleague / etc...) Bridget Quesnell from Massechusetts.

2.  Your constituents are reading the blog, not just your own post, so we don't have to keep repeating the same information over and over again.  The summary of what was accomplished in committee should have gotten shorter and shorter, to where you just add on what you viewed / experienced differently.

3.  Partisanship in the blog:  Remember this blog was created to make transparent the inner workings of the "do-nothing-Congress".  Americans are already fed up with you, especially those active enough to read this blog.  Any negativity you feel toward each other should be veiled, and ultimately, as frustration grows in committees, blamed on the other party of course!

4.  Remember to incorporate terms into your posts.

5.  I will ask committee chairs to start a post before class is over Wednesday, and those in that committee should reply to THAT post, thus keeping information organized by committee.  For Friday's committee work, I will ask ranking members to initiate the post.  Keeping the information within committee, seeing the Dems. and the Reps. "respectfully" share their perspectives of the days events back and forth we may better see the sparks fly.

EACH POST SHOULD MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS:

1.  BE ROUGHLY A PARAGRAPH
2.  INCLUDE NO LESS THAN 2 VOCABULARY WORDS USED ACCURATELY
3.  INDICATE SOME KNOWLEDGE - OF THE PROCESS AND AFTER THIS FIRST ONE EVIDENCE SOME RESEARCH ON THE SUBJECT OF THE LEGISLATION YOU DISCUSSED THAT DAY

TUESDAY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BLOG

The voters have not been happy with Congress of late, so both the House and the Senate have begun to blog daily to a public blog to increase transparency in the institution.   Consider that while only House members are allowed to publish to the blog, it does have a healthy readership from across the country.

There will be a specified day later in the week that will be an interior blog - for the House members eyes only, but unless otherwise stated, assume that it is public.

Tuesday's session involved the assignment of committees, leadership positions, referral of some bills, and some general intra - party strategizing.  What is your take on todays session, considering your demographics, your goals, and cross-pressures?

EACH POST SHOULD MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS:

1.  BE ROUGHLY A PARAGRAPH
2.  INCLUDE NO LESS THAN 2 VOCABULARY WORDS USED ACCURATELY
3.  INDICATE SOME KNOWLEDGE - OF THE PROCESS AND AFTER THIS FIRST ONE EVIDENCE SOME RESEARCH ON THE SUBJECT OF THE LEGISLATION YOU DISCUSSED THAT DAY

Election 2016 Candidates and Debate Coverage

Students must do one of the following for this week:

WATCH at least 30 minutes of the Democrat debates Tuesday night (7:30 - 9:30 or 10) on CNN 

AND post your observation to the following:

          1.  Observations about substance of what was said -

          2.  Observations about the superficial - looks / attitude / temperament

          3.  1 Superlative  - the most interesting, funniest, worst, most ignorant, biggest mistake...

OR

READ 2 articles about the debates from 2 different sources.  (One could be a newscast that could be searched on YouTube and WATCHED instead)  One should at least make some sort of comparison to the Republicans' debates and post the 2 links and post the following :

        1.  Observations about substance of what was said

        2.  Observations about the superficial - looks / attitude / temperament of the candidates

        3.  What do the sources claim to be the effect of the debate on the "Horse Race"?

This post will be worth 25 points.

U.S. Gun Debate and Public Policy

Read and explore the charts and graphs at both of the following sources, in the order they are listed.  

Post a NOW response:

New - one thing you learned that was new - it has to be different from the two answers above you.
Opinion - state your opinion about one aspect of these 3 sources.
Want to know - what is one thing about this subject you wonder / want to know more about.

Gun Rhetoric vs. Gun Facts

Anti-gun Control Spending Stays in the Shadows

Environment - Climate Change and U.S. Policy

Read the article from the United Nations titled  

WHAT WE DO:

TACKLING THE GLOBAL CLIMATE CHALLENGE

           linked below:

http://www.unfoundation.org/what-we-do/issues/energy-and-climate/tackling-global-climate-challenge.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

and watch the video titled:

The Facts of Cap and Trade

linked below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwN1OwdUkgg

and then read the short article with helpful interactive titled:

Obama Just Created a Carbon Cap-and-Trade Program

 linked below:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/obama-just-created-a-carbon-cap-and-trade-program-19309

Post a NOW response:

New - one thing you learned that was new - it has to be different from the two answers above you.
Opinion - state your opinion about one aspect of these 3 sources.
Want to know - what is one thing about this subject you wonder / want to know more about.

Who do you Tax? What do you cut?

Watch both of the video segments below, which will extend your understanding of taxation and its effect on the economy.  Then carry out the budget simulation titled "Stabilize the Debt".  THERE IS NO OTHER RESEARCH YOU NEED TO DO.  After completing all three exercises, write a 1 - 3 paragraph position statement on your fiscal beliefs.  Who do you tax?  What do you cut?  Be sure to explain your rationale.  Please take some time to review your classmates' answers as well.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXDYPGQiG_I&feature=em-subs_digest

Balanced Budget Amendment explained


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbxXns0zero

How the Government Uses Fiscal Policy to Influence the Economy

http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/#

Stabilize the Debt - Budget Simulation

Income "Gap" and Taxation

Important as a campaign issue, underlying the division between the haves and the have nots, and also clearly economic, lets look at the income gap and taxation this next week.

Posted is a video that provides the history of the minimum wage

An Animated History Of The Minimum Wage

http://business.time.com/2014/02/28/an-animated-history-of-the-minimum-wage/

Watch this to provide some historical perspective.  Then read the included article that claims to reveal 

5 Tax Myths You'll Hear During Republican Presidential Debate

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-clemente/five-tax-myths-youll-hear_b_7944370.html

In your post I want you to take one of the myths and support its accuracy (as in why it is true and is not a myth).  Find a source that will provide you with some help and be sure and post the url.

The Nuclear Deal With Iran - To support or not to support?

This post includes 3 important items - Please view all 3 before you comment with your opinion on the deal.

1:       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6aL5TVVRFI

President Obama talks with NPR about Iran Nuke deal

2.       http://www.vox.com/2015/7/15/8970455/iran-deal-charts

Visual representation of Iran Nuke deal


3.       Below:  Letter from U.S. Senator from Iowa Chuck Grassley to myself in response to my question about his position on the Iran Nuke deal, received August 6, 2015, just after Obama's address to the nation.



CHARLES E. GRASSLEY
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-1501
120 Federal Building
320 6th Street
Sioux City, IA 51101-1244
(712) 233-1860

210 Waterloo Building
531 Commercial Street
Waterloo, IA 50701-5497
(319) 232-6657

201 West 2nd Street
Suite 720
Davenport, IA 52801-1817
(563) 322-4331

307 Federal Building
8 South 6th Street
Council Bluffs, IA 51501-4204
(712) 322-7103

Dear Mrs. Ahrens:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me. As your Senator, it is important for me to hear from you. Please accept my apology for the delayed response.

I appreciate hearing your thoughts regarding the nuclear agreement between the United States, China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany and Iran on their nuclear program.  For more than two decades, Iran has engaged in illicit activities to acquire nuclear capabilities.  These efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and Iran’s support of terrorist groups are serious U.S. security threats.

In November 2013, the Administration announced a tentative agreement with Iran following negotiations between the U.S., Iran, and five other world powers.  In exchange for Iran slowing certain aspects of its illicit nuclear program, the United States suspended some sanctions.  On April 2, 2015, President Obama announced what he described as “Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” regarding Iran’s nuclear program.  On July 14, the negotiators announced that a deal had been reached, and subsequently released the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to implement the deal.

According to President Obama, this deal will prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, and in exchange, all nuclear-related sanctions on Iran will be lifted.  I have serious concerns about the 150-page implementation plan.  Notably, it accepts and legitimizes Iran as a nuclear threshold state. Iran will not dismantle many important parts of its uranium enrichment infrastructure, contrary to past U.S. policy that Iran not be allowed to enrich. And, Iran is permitted to continue a vast research and development program.  Many of the significant limitations expire after ten years, leaving Iran an internationally legitimate nuclear program.  

Perhaps most troubling, Iran could fully abide by this deal and be a nuclear threshold state.  They will be allowed to retain significant enrichment technology.  Key bomb making technology will not be dismantled, and they will continue their nuclear research and development.  Iran will achieve and maintain an internationally recognized, industrial scale nuclear program.  In just eight years, Iran can begin production of efficient, advanced centrifuges to enrich uranium. This is all contrary to the initial goal Obama announced.

Concerns also remain regarding the strength of the inspection and verification regime that’s in place to ensure that if Iran cheats, we can catch them.  Energy Secretary Moniz assured Congress that international inspections would occur “anytime, anywhere.”  However, under the terms of the agreement, inspectors will have “managed access,” with Russia, China and Iran having a say when and where inspectors can go. In fact, the deal provides Iran with a 24-day process to further delay and hide prohibited activities.  Iran has a track record of cheating on past agreements, and this deal allows Iran to stonewall the inspectors for up to 24 days.

Another important concession included in the deal is the lack of resolution on the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) concerns on Iran’s past nuclear weapons work – there is no requirement that Iran provide details on their past military dimensions of their nuclear program, even though the U.S. position was that Iran had to come clean about that history before any sanctions relief.  It’s critical for a robust verification regime to work, that the IAEA have a full accounting of Iran’s past efforts and stockpiles.

Even more troubling is that U.S. policymakers do not have access to the side agreements between the IAEA and Iran, which the Administration claims are standard practice in arms control agreements.  Not having access to those side agreements is enormously troubling.   The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which passed the Senate 98-1, requires the Administration to provide to Congress access to all “annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings and any related agreements" as part of the deal.  Iran has a history of successfully hiding illicit nuclear work.  A lot of questions remain about the effectiveness of the verification process.

I also have concerns about the last-minute decision to lift the embargo on conventional arms and ballistic missiles.  General Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in July that “we should under no circumstances relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.  But, under this agreement, after just five years the conventional arms embargo will be lifted.  After just eight years, the ballistic missile embargo will be lifted.  Iran has long sought the technology to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles, which would be a direct threat to the U.S. and our allies.  And Iran’s past arms trafficking to Hezbollah, Hamas and others has long threatened Israel, other Middle East allies and stability in the region.

In exchange for abiding by the terms of this agreement, the U.S., United Nations, and the European Union will lift the vast majority of sanctions.  Once Iran has complied with the initial restraints on their nuclear program including reducing installed centrifuges and lowering enriched uranium stockpiles, the U.S. European Union, and United Nations the sanctions will be lifted.  This could occur as early as this fall, and release more than $100 billion of frozen Iranian assets.    The lifting of sanctions and release of these funds will only exacerbate Iran’s support for terror, with Iran having access to tens of billions of frozen assets to bolster their conventional military and further support terrorism.  Even Secretary of State Kerry testified that Iran is likely to use some of the funds to purchase weapons and fund terrorism that would threaten Americans and Israeli’s.

The concept of “snapping-back” these sanctions also appears less effective than was originally claimed.  While any member of the agreement could refer a dispute to the UN Security Council, Iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part, Iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its commitments under the agreement.  Essentially, if Iran views snap-back sanctions as grounds to walk away from the agreement, any effort to reimpose sanctions will be regarded by all parties as whether or not to dissolve the agreement and impose sanctions.

Let me be clear, I support all efforts that will prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability.  Proponents of this agreement argue that the only alternative to the deal is war.  That’s a false choice.  Iran came to the negotiating table because they desperately sought sanctions relief.  If this deal were rejected, it would allow our negotiating team to negotiate a better deal that more adequately safeguards the nation’s security interests of the United States and our allies.  A better deal would not legitimize Iran as a nuclear threshold state, it would not trade massive sanctions relief for limited temporary constraints, and it would not provide concessions that will trigger a regional nuclear arms race.

I’m also terribly frustrated that the Administration decided to purse consideration of the agreement at the United Nations Security Council prior to Congressional consideration.  The UN subsequently agreed to a binding resolution to lift sanctions on Iran after 90 days.   This is an end-run around Congress and is an affront to the American people.  It’s unfortunate that, despite bipartisan objections, the Administration pushed forward the vote at the UN.

Aside from Iran’s efforts to achieve nuclear weapons capability, it’s important to remember that they continue to hold three Americans hostage.  At least 500 U.S. military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are directly linked to Iran and its support for anti-American militants.  They provide support for the brutal Assad regime in Syria, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and provide weapons, funding and support to Hamas and Hezbollah.

Given Iran’s spotty track record and history of noncompliance with numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions calling on them to cease their nuclear program, we have little reason to trust the Iranian government.  I strongly agree with President Obama that it is better to have no deal than a bad deal.  I fear the deal we’ve been presented has far too many shortcomings, and will fail to make America and our allies safer.  I want you to know that I will continue to study the terms of the deal until the Senate votes on the agreement in early September, as provided under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. I urge you to keep in touch.

Sincerely,
Chuck

Ally Gallagher; The Psycology Behind Trump's Votes

When reading this article, the first thing that intrigued me was how popular Donald Trump has become since his obnoxious presentation at the first Republican debate. One would think that after admitting to possibly using a third party if not elected for the Republicans, as well as telling a competitior he was having an off night would bring a candidate down in the polls. But, Trump soared; earlier seen as a joke, Trump has now topped the leaderboards. The most intriguing thing about this sudden change of voter opinions is the psychology behind it. Using a source from the Huffington Post, I discovered five reasons why Trump may be such a popular candidate.
Standing for something, refusing to disappoint the American people, and even relating to the people on a more judgmental note were all reasons included; but my favorite two causes are object constancy and the mirror neuron gap. Object constancy is the ability to hold onto hope for something to happen even in the face of disappointment, which most voters have no tolerance for. This draws them to Trump's disapointment-free campaign. But, this is also dangerous for Trump because one slight mishap could send the votes in all other directions. Lastly, the mirror neuron gap is what people experience when they feel as if they care more about the world around them than the world cares about them. Trump is successful in making people feel united by saying what everyone is thinking, and most importantly closing the neuron gap. Although this seems to be more of a psychology lesson than a class blog post, I found it very intriguing just how easily a candidate can receive votes; They just need to relate to the people, and most of all, be different. This is why Trump has a shot at becoming the next president of the United States. People see him on television and can relate to what he is saying. The voters want change; and, as of now, the people believe Trump can bring that change.

The Primary Campaign has begun!

http://www.borntorunthenumbers.com/2015/08/the-first-gop-debate-trumped.html Visit above link to read the article at it's original site. React in a comment with the 3 required elements: a. personal educated reaction b. source of article referenced c. explanation of how this article adds to the discussion / supports your opinion You may comment on the original post or react to a student's reaction (so comment or reply to that instead) To score I will view all comments and replies posted before class time on Friday. There is no late credit allowed.

EXAMPLE